| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded to honorable. In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 25 November 1980 as a material control and accounting specialist.
On 2 March 1981, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongful possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty. On 22 November 1983, he was honorably discharged in order to reenlist.
He reenlisted on 23 November 1983.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 15 February 1985 for wrongful possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
On 22 February 1985, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued. He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 5 March 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 4 April 1985. He had a total of 4 years, 10 months, and 10 days of creditable service.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 1 February 2001. However, the ADRB was precluded from accepting his application due to its statute of limitations. The Board accepted his application (DD Form 149), dated 28 April 2001.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized
punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence
in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that his discharge should be upgraded.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
3. The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that
would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__ca___ __dh____ __cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001055837 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850404 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 CHAP, 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003531
In his request for discharge, he acknowledged he understood if the discharge request were approved, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged by reason of "for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial" with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028069
The applicant requests his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079164C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052962C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The separation authority approved the request and directed reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and separation under other than honorable conditions. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004541C070205
Although a discharge under other than honorable conditions was approved, the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 28 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. On 24 June 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge. Since the applicant’s record of service included a serious drug...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075164C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 16 January 1985, he went AWOL and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Bragg on 26 February 1985, where charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007894
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. On 11 July 1985, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007134C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001487C071029
The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. The court-martial charges are not available and the specific reason for his discharge is not known; however, the evidence of record shows that his voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. It is noted that the applicant might have...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003812C070206
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Chapter 10 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of...